Dear Connecticut...

[drbassman]

By making the ones who don't cause the damage pay for the ones that do.

The responsible folks already are insured.

That's why we have "no fault" insurance in NY.  We don't want the irresponsibile to be singled out (might lose self-esteem) for not particpating in our overbearing insurance system. 

[drbassman]

And while we're at on board with your pool idea, let's have society at large replenish that pool to reimburse gun owners for every legitimate defensive use of a gun. After all, even the anti-gun Brady Center once admitted that there were 108,000 defensive uses a year, and other surveys put the number much higher. Compare that to the number of gun homicides.

+1

BTW.........this happens everyday, but it will never make the national news and a lot of folks here don't want to admit that guns can be effective in the hands of law-abiding citizens.  How can we ignore this fact?

Columbus Dispatch, Columbus, Ohio, January 8, 2013
A man was shielding his infant son when he shot another man who had just robbed him Monday night on the Hilltop, police say.

Kelby Smith, 34, had just gotten out of his car in his brother's driveway on Crescent Drive about 8:45 p.m. when a man with a pistol approached him and demanded money, police said.

Smith was carrying his 2-month-old son in a car seat at the time. He knelt down in front of his son to shield him as the robber held the gun to Smith's head, police said.

While Smith was handing over a small amount of cash, he pulled his gun out of a holster, said detective Brian Boesch of the Columbus police robbery squad. Smith is a concealed-carry permit holder, Boesch said.

The robber fled, police said, but then pointed his gun back at Smith as he ran.

"When I pulled my pistol he took off running and I shot and it hit him," Smith later told a 911 dispatcher.

The dispatcher asked Smith how he knew the man had been shot.

"Cause when I shot he started crying and he fell to the ground," Smith told the dispatcher.

A short time later, a man matching the description of the robber came into Mount Carmel West hospital with a gunshot wound. He was taken to surgery and is under police guard tonight.

[Pilgrim]

(15 posts have intervened since I was motivated to start writing this...sheesh...)

As perhaps the token media-guy here, I want to argue with the "corrupt media" concept.  For the last 2-3 decades many people, especially conservatives, have been endlessly replaying an assertion that commercial media in the US are radically liberal and corrupt.  I disagree with both assertions.

First, I agree that most of those whom I have met in electronic media circles tend to run a bit left of center.  (This of course omits the radical conservatives who dominate talk radio, and the rightist tendency of the Fox network.)  Not radically left of center, but a bit.  And since I have that perception, I tend to watch news and consider whether I see evidence of it.  Of course, I'm not an unbiased observer since I share the position of being a little bit on the left.  I see enough indication in the questions asked and the assumptions made that I think my perception is reinforced.  However, since broadcast operations are still compelled to "operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity," there are limits on what they can do in news coverage and I think those limits are generally respected.

However, my observation is that the most important negative influence on electronic media is the incessant push to be immediate and sensational.  Don Henley got that right when he sang: "Give them dirty laundry."  I think the constant push to have the first and most sensational report is a big reason that electronic media are perceived as corrupt.  I strongly believe that most broadcast operations are not corrupt, and that the reporters and their supervisors are striving for ratings, not outcomes that are prop-ted by political or commercial bribery.  But in the process, common sense (sending the new truck out at 10 PM to shoot a darkened courthouse while a reporter does a standup in front) and taste are often sacrificed.

[dadagoboi]

Speaking of revisionism, have you read Howard Zinn's book?  It rivals the Russian piece in it's audacity and bias.

I assume you're referring to 'A People's History Of The United States'.  I have and what you call bias I call truth.  Audacious, definitely.

[drbassman]

I assume you're referring to 'A People's History Of The United States'.  I have and what you call bias I call truth.  Audacious, definitely.

Truth in terms of many of things that occurred, but certainly not exclusive to the US as a country and society.  Remember, relativists, all governments and societies throughout time have committed the same crimes against humanity for the very same reasons.  The only important question to relativists is "Who did it most or best?"  It's not the crime itself, it's who did the most that really matters.  The problem with the book is the US is hardly alone.  Otherwise, an interesting compendium and catalog of our national misdeeds from COlumbus forward.  That being said, I don't want to enter into a debate about the relative evilness of one explorer, country or government over another.  In my mind, they all have sinned big time at one time or another.  That's all I need to know.

[patman]

Not sure how shooting a fleeing robber made Mr. Smith's son safer. The money doesn't count. Stuff is just stuff.

[Pilgrim]

Not sure how shooting a fleeing robber made Mr. Smith's son safer. The money doesn't count. Stuff is just stuff.

The deterrent is most effective when the effect is permanent.  Once a thief steals something using a gun, IMO that thief is eligible for permanent retirement...which prevents repetition of the theft.

What is important in this case is not the theft - because stuff is just stuff - it's that deadly force was used to steal the stuff.  IMO use of deadly force makes the user immediately eligible to be responded to with deadly force.

[drbassman]

Not sure how shooting a fleeing robber made Mr. Smith's son safer. The money doesn't count. Stuff is just stuff.

The story noted that the robber turned and pointed the gun at him again as he ran away.  The story implies it was then he shot him.  That's how the story reads, in a linear fashion.  If it were me, I wouldn't give him a second opporuntity either.

[Pilgrim]

The story noted that the robber turned and pointed the gun at him again as he ran away.  The story implies it was then he shot him.  That's how the story reads, in a linear fashion.  If it were me, I wouldn't give him a second opporuntity either.

Nor me.  Use a gun for theft and if you end up dead, you're only getting what you asked for.

[drbassman]

Nor me.  Use a gun for theft and if you end up dead, you're only getting what you asked for.

"No wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise."
? Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

[patman]

I think we're losing sight of the central issue.  If the central issue is to protect next generation, I'm not sure pulling out gun (possibly to invite return fire--at the very least it introduces an element of uncertainty into the situation) was increasing the safety of his child.  Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand.

[Pilgrim]

I think we're losing sight of the central issue.  If the central issue is to protect next generation, I'm not sure pulling out gun (possibly to invite return fire--at the very least it introduces an element of uncertainty into the situation) was increasing the safety of his child.  Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand.

I think you've forgotten the sequence.

Thief pulls gun; conducts theft
Thief starts to leave;
Thief turns and points gun at victim AGAIN - possibly (even presumably) to kill victim.

At that point, thief is presumably intent on murder and is fully eligible to have account canceled.

If he doesn't turn and point the firearm again, then the threat has gone away and no action is appropriate.  But if he points it a second time, deadly force is fully appropriate.

[uwe]

Help me out on this: Who again was self-defending himself against whom in Sandy Hook?

[drbassman]

Help me out on this: Who again was self-defending himself against whom in Sandy Hook?

Isn't a pain in the butt when a gun can be used for multiple purposes?  We'll never resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.

[patman]

if it was easy, it would have been done already.